Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHK - 2013-12-03 - HIA 399-411 Queen St S - Barra on Queen - Zone Change Application Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, Kitchener n prepared by The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. landscape architects, environmental planners, heritage planners 319 Woolwich Street, Guelph, ONN1H 3W4 (519) 824-8664 fax(519) 824-6776 email landplan(a�,thelandplan.com D F 7110 October 23, 2013 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, Kitchener Table of Contents 1.0 BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2.0 HERITAGE and DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS - the HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT . . . . . 1 2.1 Present owner contact information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.2 Site history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.3 Listing and written description of existing structures, significance and heritage attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.4 Documentation of the heritage resource . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.5 The proposed development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.6 Conservation-principles and mitigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.7 Summary of conservation principles and how they will be used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 2.8 Proposed demolition/alterations explained . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 2.9 Alternatives for salvage mitigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 2.10 Qualifications of the author completing the Heritage Impact Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 3.0 SUMMARY STATEMENT and CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Appendix 1 - City of Kitchener Community Services Department-Planning Division, 30-40 Margaret Avenue Proposed Site Plan Application Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment Terms of Reference Appendix 2 - excerpt from Record of Pre-submission Consultation Appendix 3 - Shadow Study Appendix 4 - Tree survey Appendix 5 - Qualifications of the author The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. L A F ':I["October 23,2013 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 1 30-40 Margaret Avenue, Kitchener 1.0 BACKGROUND A Heritage Impact Assessment was prepared by The Landplan Collaborative Ltd.for aprior Site Plan Application submission for this property in 2008. That HIA received conditional approval. The previous HIA,the scoped HIA terms of reference provided by the City(see Appendix 1),and the March 2013 Pre-consultation Meeting notes(see Appendix 2) are used as the basis for this scoped HIA. The currently vacant property falls within the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District (CCHCD). The vacant parcel of land at 30-40 Margaret Avenue was recognized within the CCHCD Study as a candidate site for redevelopment. The following statement was made in the Study document: Given relatively recent development activity, along with the large vacant property on Margaret Avenue and the range of designations that contemplate some form of integrated redevelopment and mixed uses, it is also apparent that much of the Civic Centre Neighbourhood has the potential for additional, and possibly dramatic changes in the future. If not sensitively handled, such changes could permanently alter both the visual and historical character of the neighbourhood and streetscape. 1 Given Council's acceptance of the CCHCD Study conclusion that the Civic Centre Neighbourhood is of significant cultural heritage value and deserving of designation; and given that the sensitive development of the subject property was specifically identified as a matter that deserves particular attention if the visual and historical character of the Civic Centre Neighbourhood and Margaret Avenue streetscape is to be conserved;in compliance with Provincial Policy Statement 2.6.1, staff required that a Heritage Impact Assessment be a submission requirement for any development application made for this property. This HIA follows the Scoped City of Kitchener Heritage Impact Assessment Terms of Reference(see Appendix 1) and recommendations found in the March 2013 Pre-consultation Meeting notes (see Appendix 2). 2.0 HERITAGE and DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS-the HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT The CCHCD Plan provides specific guidance regarding the development of the subject property. In this regard the following comments are made in the HCD Plan document. The large vacant lot on Margaret Avenue is currently designated Medium Density Multiple Residential, which is intended to permit some integrated medium density development while maintaining the overall character of the neighbourhood. Zoning for the large vacant parcel is R8, which permits a floor space ratio of 2 and a maximum height of 24 metres(approximately 8 storeys) for multiple dwellings. The majority of buildings beside, across from and backing onto the large vacant site on Margaret are still the original detached dwellings, primarily 2 to 2-'/ storeys in height. One high rise apartment is situated across from the east end of the site. While the zoning would allow for construction of an 8 storey building, it would be more difficultfor a building of this height to "maintain the overall character of the neighbourhood". Actual architectural and design elements, along with siting of buildings would likely play an equally importantrole in whether new developmentwas compatible with the character of the neighbourhood. With the permitted floor space ratio of 2, it would be very possible to achieve the maximum floor area within a building envelope of S storeys or less. As a result, consideration should be given to reducing the maximum permitted height in this area to approximately 16.S metres to reduce potential 1 Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District Plan, Stantec,August 2007 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. C:;)L A F ':I["October 23,2013 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 2 30-40 Margaret Avenue, Kitchener height impacts on the street and adjacent neighbours. Height impacts could also be addressed through the addition of angular planes and/or stepback requirements in the zoning by-law or guidelines to minimize building heights nearest the street. In addition,a maximum frontyard setback of 10 metres is recommended to establish a street edge similar to the opposite side of Margaret Avenue. It is also recognized that there are quite a number of mature trees that are located on the property. Opportunities to retain and/or design around these trees should be encouraged. ' The high rise building referred to in the Stantec report is 18 storeys and there is another apartment building of 4 storeys opposite the west end of the property. The CCHCD Plan also contains area and site specific design guidelines including the following guidelines for 30- 40 Margaret Avenue,which should be considered during the building and site design process: • New development on the vacant lot on MargaretAvenue should establish a strong relationship to the street similar to that which exists on the south side of the street, by having a maximum front yard setback of 10 metres. • A minimum rear yard setback of 10 to 15 metres is encouraged to minimize the impact of new development on existing residents on Ellen Street West, given that the topography slopes downwards from Margaret Avenue to Ellen Street. This rear yard setback is also more consistent with that of existing development on Ellen Street. • Building stepbacks are encouraged for any development greater than 3-4 storeys in height to minimize the impact of new development on the pedestrian environment of the street. Stepbacks should be a minimum of 2 metres to provide for useable outdoor terraces on the upper levels. • Street level architecture of any new development on Margaret Avenue should incorporate a high degree of building articulation and architectural detail to provide interest and compatibility with existing buildings across the street. Details could include cornices, pilasters, varied roof lines,pitched roofs, gables and dormers, decorative door and window details, turrets,porches, bays and other similar features. • Create transitions in building width and massing by dividing the building visually into smaller units or sections that are more representative of the predominantly single family nature of the neighbourhood. • The use of brick and/or stone is strongly encouraged for the front fagade of any new development, to establish consistency with other heritage buildings in proximity to this parcel of land. • Parking for new development will not be permitted in the front yard. Underground parking is strongly encouraged,or appropriately landscaped and screened surface parking at the rear or side of the development. • Retention and incorporation of healthy trees currently located on the vacant land parcel is strongly encouraged to provide the new development with an `instant'amenity and to help it blend into the heritage landscape that exists in the Civic Centre Neighbourhood. Design new buildings around the existing trees to the extent possible. Where trees must be removed, they should be replaced with new ones at appropriate locations in the landscape. 2 Aid The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. L A F ':I["October 23,2013 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 3 30-40 Margaret Avenue, Kitchener The illustrations ... ... show a conceptual design for the Margaret Avenue site that would result in relatively high density, yet be compatible with the heritage character of the neighbourhood with respect to built form, relationship to the street, building articulation, use of upper storey stepbacks and incorporation of architectural features such as porches,pitched roofs, window proportion and placement. 3 .I n. d, f W ! u•4�'U r y, +� r 7 � ;u%md arrp4 or Un A;aa nL& P mvVp M fed WaI mid W y ra0disa4AIv`;Uv"'Vmr V 4Pau`sV,p PdIII FMw VQI tdzr, AYPWM;a9'ar, bjF,by- CON Nth q ib N bkv-*. 6"ctac Wx2tapAn!gg"mndff4&sammWn arQr Amg amau'9rw&,aa✓ps rvY sha wn �. '.° . �'l�vw�gt�w^r v���r.���anura �rr eti»,pw�+Cwmaga'kwer:�tiaa rr+�a�,�!aen�.�z�'Z+�as ses sy�s mR b"VSr b am yam row me mew,IiI mar taare ,,,5*'agVlgm tu'r gears abeva and ""gym 0"tQun uw+uat ara1. "� A MwM•'k. tiwGalaaxd ��Ntlaaa � w wwwwwwww STOm +aaana..tt mug"rya'awPd MAN'u"?'da'HouY7 I ire s'? I iCaCAmuo, NCO2�iRaw.'u 9Ti7W Ano Irmo mj"5 mn WA:wm 63IWA 0 4Z,09WS'sSbom V MW M01, Figure 1 from:August 2007 Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District Plan, Stantec 3 Ibid The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. L A F ':I["October 23,2013 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 4 30-40 Margaret Avenue, Kitchener 2.1 Present owner contact information Activa Holdings Inc. 55 Columbia Street East, Suite 2, Waterloo, ON N2J 4N7 attention: Ms. Jennifer Voss, MCIP, RPP, Manager,Planning 519-886-9400 Ext. 107 2.2 Site history The property was recently purchased by the current owners. The structures had been removed by previous owners prior to purchase. This property was home to a number ofsignificant mansions which were allowed by their property owners to go into serious disrepair and eventually were demolished in the 1980s and 1990s. 4 The property,prior to the structures being removed,consisted of eight lots. The former residence illustrated in figure 3 is typical of the homes that once graced these lots from the mid-19th to the mid-20th century. Margaret Avenue was named after Margaret Wagner Bean (Biehn) (nee Hailer) sister-in-law of Philip Louis Breithaupt, an industrialist who moved from Buffalo to Berlin launching a tannery business in 1858. He became mayor of Berlins Philip Louis Breithaupt's home,Waldeck,was built in 1870 close by the tannery on Adam Street. It had a four story tower and was most likely the first home in Berlin to be centrally heated, thanks to steam pipes from the nearby tannery boiler room. It was built from plans by D.W. Gingerich, a well-known local architect. Waldeck was to remain the family home until the death of Albert Liborius Breithaupt in 1955,who had been born in the house in 1870 and had lived there his whole life. Waldeck was demolished in 1966 and the New Apostolic Church was built on the site.6 2.3 Listing and written description of existing structures, significance and heritage attributes 7 There are no extant structures on the property,nor are there any visible remnants. Heritage elements consist solely of a number of mature trees, many planted in the early part of the 20th century or before. (see Appendix 4) Some of the former lot fabric can still be discerned,mainly via the location of the trees and former driveways still visible. It appears that portions of Ellen Street rear lots were purchased and added to the property at the time of land assembly. (see figure 2) 4 Ibid,page 3.10 5 htti)://ianhaddenfamilvhistory.blogsi)ot.ca/2011/02/margaret-avenue-kitchener-ontario.html accessed October 10,2013 6 from the Breithaupt Hewetson Clark Collection,Doris Lewis Rare Book Room,University of Waterloo Library Special Collections Department The report shall include a clear statement of the conclusions regarding the cultural heritage value and interest as well as a bulletpoint list of heritage attributes. The statement should address the relationship of the property to the surrounding context(including surrounding properties located within the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District and the Margaret Avenue streetscape). Scoped City of Kitchener Heritage Impact Assessment Terms of Reference(Appendix 1) The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. L A F ':I["October 23,2013 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 5 30-40 Margaret Avenue, Kitchener ' 4 11 tl � Ca3 Y/ 1 IIM.. Iryi � o 'w Vi�l �In t� p" �zr A f 'i ri iro w r. figure 2 former lot fabric-Lots 194-203 and 211-217 i p�llibl �, ry I III r� U ntw S„ j r 0 Figure 3 Waldeck,Breithaupt Family Home,Margaret Avenue, 1900 Doris Lewis Rare Book Room Dana Porter Library, University of Waterloo The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. C:;)L A F ':I["October 23,2013 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 6 30-40 Margaret Avenue, Kitchener 2.4 Documentation of the heritage resource Figure 4 provides locations of the numbered photographs found below. As there is no heritage resource per se,other than the property being within a Heritage Conservation District and the mature trees on site,Building Code requirements,Zoning requirements,Engineering requirements, etc. would not have an impact on the conservation of the heritage resource(s). M .217 `47 34' J X30', 45; ` 28-28 10t 37 '35 33"J� X31; h„ iy' 14r 29% `211 u- 53 '; �VriIV I� i�l iil i 5 . ! v uuu uuumi uuuuuuuuum m i � � ` OOOV IIIIIII�I IIIIIIIIIIIIIII uu p ' r �:o I ' 1 r u. % 12f11� y Figure 4 site photographs The following photographs illustrate the mixed eras, styles,heights and massing of structures adjacent to and across the street from the subject property,from an 18-storey apartment tower to 2-storey single family residences. The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. L A F ':I["October 23,2013 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 7 30-40 Margaret Avenue, Kitchener r yr! / I IrW i 41 -four storey apartment 42-single family residences 43 - 18 storey apartment tower east side of Margaret street from subject property y yn !1l//!MriG✓i r�� 4u a� �/�nJ9Ufl7J�(�I,,�y IJ)l�l'�'r a �J���. ,,r � rr i�%/%�� °� ,viii, ����G./� �� � f l i l aa„ f l 44-Church of the Good Shepherd 45 -church parking lot 3 - 4 storey church on southern border of subject property �1 ��(fl�llll,� �ff��fffffffff�fffffff Ifflll1111111 I� 17d� �llllllIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 2/2 storey residence on northern boundary of property 46-residence 47-panorama from north to south looking east at rear of Ellen Street houses,garages and sheds on deep lots The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. C:;)L A F ':I["October 23,2013 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 8 30-40 Margaret Avenue, Kitchener 2.5 The proposed development The Civic Centre NeighbourhoodHeritage Conservation DistrictPlan,(Stantec,August2007)notes with respect to the property: A large parcel of land on the east side of Margaret Avenue is currently vacant, exceptfor a number of mature trees. .... ....Because it is such a large site and is located on one of the more highly travelled streets in the District, it has pronounced visibility with the potential to significantly enhance or detract from the overall character of the neighbourhood depending on the ultimate appearance of development on the site. 8 Figure 5 illustrates how the proposed development creates a rhythm that reflects the original lot configuration. Driveways at the south and north ends of the development lead to an underground garage and rear yard surface parking respectively. Setbacks reflect those in the neighbourhood. Landscape plantings are consistent with historic patterns. Buildings are placed perpendicular to the street in the established pattern of the neighbourhood. Step backs of the upper floors, and rear yard setbacks are designed to reduce the apparent height and prevent shading issues associated with the structures. The proposed development respects the historic context of both the property and the neighbourhood. fJ .; 1�, �........... 1 . = ..... ° ........ ..L,�� j �� .. k h i f U,�ij -------- 77-:, � .. �r p e..� w. _. ..._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.roan,t.,.a i ..............._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.. Figure 5 Site Plan 2.6 Conservation -principles and mitigation Heritage features on the property are limited to the mature trees as no structures or remnants of structures remain. Guidance to conservation is provided in the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District Plan,(Stantec,August 2007)as outlined in section"2.0 Heritage and Design Considerations-the Heritage Impact Assessment"of this report. The principles are re-stated here,with comments on how they are to be implemented. • New development on the vacant lot on Margaret Avenue should establish a strong relationship to the street similar to that which exists on the south side of the street, by having a maximum front yard setback of 10 metres Residences on the opposite side of the street have setbacks that range from 0 to 10 metres. These s Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District Plan,(Stantec,August 2007) The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. C:;)L A F ':I["October 23,2013 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 9 30-40 Margaret Avenue, Kitchener setbacks are a guide for 30-40 Margaret Avenue,assuming that the proposed buildings are in scale with those that exist opposite. The residential units proposed for the property are four storeys set back 7.5 in from the street,with the 5th and 6th storeys set back another 3 in and 4.5 in respectively. The scale of the buildings at the 7.5 metre setback is consistentwith the existing streetscape and well within the maximum frontyard setback of 10 metres recommended. • A minimum rear yard setback of 10 to 15 metres is encouraged to minimize the impact of new development on existing residents on Ellen Street West, given that the topography slopes downwards from Margaret Avenue to Ellen Street. This rear yard setback is also more consistent with that of existing development on Ellen Street. Proposed rear yard setbacks range from 11.5 to 32 metres. The stepped-backed configuration at the rear of the buildings,in concert with the generous rear yard setbacks,reduces shadowing of the rear yards of neighbouring Ellen Street properties. (see Appendix 3) • Building stepbacks are encouraged for any development greater than 3-4 storeys in height to minimize the impact of new development on the pedestrian environment of the street. Stepbacks should be a minimum of 2 metres to provide for useable outdoor terraces on the upper levels. See first bullet point above. An angular plane study illustrates how the design minimizes the impact of the development on the pedestrian environment and the neighbours. It illustrates angular planes from both the street side and rear yard at substantially less than the City's guideline. (Figure 6) • Street level architecture ofany new development on MargaretAvenue should incorporate a high degree of building articulation and architectural detail to provide interest and compatibility with existing buildings across the street. Details could include cornices,pilasters, varied roof lines,pitched roofs, gables and dormers, decorative door and window details, turrets, porches, bays and other similar features. Figures 7, 8 and 9 show how the first floor is separated from the next three floors with a strong, stone cornice,breaking the verticality of the building. As well,the fifth floor is setback from the floors below and the sixth floor is set back even further. Cornices, balconies and metal railings add interest to the elevations unlike the apartment buildings across the street. The ends and rear of the buildings are treated similarly,providing architectural detail on all sides. • Create transitions in building width and massing by dividing the building visually into smaller units or sections that are more representative of the predominantly single family nature of the neighbourhood. Although much of the neighbourhood is single family housing, the property on Margaret Avenue is anchored at one end by a church and at the other by a large,late 191'/early 201'century residence,while across the street are five 2/2 storey residences flanked by an 18 storey apartment building and a four storey apartment. The proposal reflects the original lot configuration with avaried setback resembling individual buildings providing a transition from the scale of development on the other side of the street to the residences to the east. • The use of brick and/or stone is strongly encouraged for the front fagade of any new development, to establish consistency with other heritage buildings in proximity to this parcel of land. The facade materials and colours of the development are selected from apallette reminiscent of adjacent neighbourhood historic building materials, namely brick fields with stone accents and metal railing details.Neighbouring building material colours range from white brick to red,brown and buff brick to gray stone. Proposed brick and stone colours are gray and tan to blend and be subtle, rather than imposing. (See figure 10) The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. L A F ':I["October 23,2013 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 10 30-40 Margaret Avenue, Kitchener l Nw X t� � k �CtNa#r,u Ww�E„ia,�.uz�ad�r�.� rrrrrrrrrrrrrr ��� � yyy/ „� it Z i r I L F, 9µ NO lu r J r J �r rL IL ............... M w I v " -b A k :"N 00— 1r W.WC 000 —11-W � } OL fit} b ��� ly l k”a ' ► e 'tir V4F '0P, 'firAAr Figure 6 angular plane study-James Fryett Architect Inc. The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. C:;)L A F ':I["October 23,2013 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 11 30-40 Margaret Avenue, Kitchener UME jn� on e '� 9I li�lli llo� I it o ,r �o r I � 1 l , � Figure 8 rear elevation from the north James Fryett Architect Inc. } Figure 9 rear view James Fryett Architect Inc. Figure 7 front elevation from the south James Fryett Architect Inc. The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. L A F ':I["October 23,2013 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 12 30-40 Margaret Avenue, Kitchener SANDING OFF WHITE ._---- _._ _._. ._ '"'"` ._. ._._: _._. UPPER FIELD AREA(57H&67H 57OREY) �,„'r""'" DOL.OMITI STONE DETAL.-SASYL.ON STONE GOL.OUR:GHARGOALTAN BLEND FINISH:CLASSIC(UNTUMSLED) SIZE:GD x 2G0 x Gomm WALL GAP OFF WHITE /+n rm. a Henn rr........... wnnnnny�pr nrm nnni n„wrn� nrr�mnai r.n r nnn+mnnn merm �rr n nnn n nnr�r' ............:.::...� .............. ............. .........: :,. ............. .............. .............. .........::: SANDING OFF WHITE UPPER FIELD AREA(57H&bTH STOREY) DOL.OMITI STONE DETAIL-BABYLON STONE COLOUR:CHARGOAL/rAN SL.END ,.. FINISH:G1A55I6(UNTUMSL.ED) 51ZE:G0 x 2G0 x Gomm ..e „„„„,,,„„,„,�, --- ------ -f---- ----- SANDING OFF WHITE FIELD AREA DOL.OMITI STONE DETAIL-BABYLON 57ONE cOL.OUR:GHARGOAVTAN BLEND, FINISH:TUMSL_ED 51ZE:MODULAR,VARIOU5 LEN6TH5& HEICGHT5:GOmm,110mm,2gOmm WINDOW-FVG DA- RAILING METAL POWDER COATED II __ SANDING OFF WHITE _. . _ BOTTOM FIELD AREA DOL.OMITI STONE DETAIL- ARGHITEGTllPV L GOLL.EGTION ..:: ...... ....., .....:� COLOUR:WHITE FINISH:BURNISHED 51ZE:1GJ x 5G0 x Gomm Figure 10 Building exterior materials and colours-James Fryett Architect Inc. • Parking for new development will not be permitted in the front yard. Underground parking is strongly encouraged, or appropriately landscaped and screened surface parking at the rear or side of the development. Surface parking is exclusively in the rear yard. Approximately twenty-three spaces are provided at grade,appropriately landscaped with existing mature trees complemented by new screen plantings. The remainder of the parking is in a two level underground structure. Two driveways enter on Margaret Avenue, one at either end of the development. • Retention and incorporation of healthy trees currently located on the vacant landparcel is strongly encouraged to provide the new development with an `instant' amenity and to help it blend into the The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. C:;)L A F ':I[”October 23,2013 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 13 30-40 Margaret Avenue, Kitchener heritage landscape that exists in the Civic Centre Neighbourhood. Design new buildings around the existing trees to the extent possible. Where trees must be removed, they should be replaced with new ones at appropriate locations in the landscape. Unfortunately,it is impossible to preserve many of the existing,mature trees on this property. In order to accommodate the principles noted above, i.e. reduce the height of the buildings; divide the building visually into smaller units or sections;encourage underground parking;etc.,aparking garage footprint that encompasses much of the site is required. With the extent of the excavation required for the garage, trees within 10 metres of the foundation walls would be negatively affected. A survey of the existing trees was conducted in July 2008 and updated in May 2013;the results can be found in Appendix 4. Many of the trees are in fair to very poor condition and are not worthy of conservation. New trees of appropriate species will be planted to replace those being removed. There is ample opportunity to re-plant in the landscaped areas which comprise approximately 27% of the property. Further guidance to conservation is provided by comments by the Coordinator,Cultural Heritage Planning in the Record ofPre-submission Consultation, 9 i.e. In reviewing the plans circulated with the notice of the Pre-Submission Consultation meeting, I would suggest the following elements in particular require attention: 0 The apartment building roof style and the lack of articulation and detail at the roofline; The buildings roof styles have been modified with a significant amount of variation in roof line and the introduction of strong cornices in contrasting material. Roof top mechanical equipment will be appropriately screened with building materials to match the facade. 0 The lack of transition in building massing and variation in front yard building setbacks; Transitions in building massing have been introduced,varying the front yard setback from 7.5 in to 9.56 in to 11.74 in to 12.9 in to 16.3 in to 18.4 in on the ground floor. 0 The fire route and drop off access/driveway in the front yard, which is not consistent with the character of the streetscapes within the heritage district. The drop off access drive has been replaced with an on-street drop off. In addition to the revisions noted above, the underground parking structure has been modified to result in a smaller footprint,creating additional landscape space free of the parking deck. This allows for large scale street trees to be planted versus the small scale trees originally proposed, and to visually tie the entire development together. Entrances to the building are defined by building setback variation and landscaping. Although much of the proposed landscape is situated on private property, the decorative brick post/iron fence that defines the private gardens has been designed with step backs to visually and functionally bring the public realm into contact with the private realm. These quasi-public spaces will be fitted with benches to foster the sense of community and introduce a landscape scale and character that is in keeping with the heritage elements of the neighbourhood. (Figure 11) Unlike the illustrations in the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District Plan, the proposal locates the new buildings in the same orientation as the original residences and those in the neighbourhood. This arrangement not only respects and mimics the historic patterns of the property, but also reduces shadowing of its neighbours. (see Appendix 3) 9 Appendix 2 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. L A F ':I["October 23,2013 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 14 30-40 Margaret Avenue, Kitchener a A a ry A 9. 0 ILI M 450, (Margaret,Avenue Figure 11 Streetscape-public and private realm 2.7 Summary of conservation principles and how they will be used See 2.6 above. 2.8 Proposed demolition/alterations explained See 2.6 above. 2.9 Alternatives for salvage mitigation Not applicable 2.10 Qualifications of the author completing the Heritage Impact Statement See Appendix 5. 3.0 SUMMARY STATEMENT and CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS There are no extant structures on the property;thus,the significance and heritage attribute is the context of the property situated in the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District. Impacts of the proposed development on the cultural heritage resource are limited to the removal of the existing trees to accommodate development. Impact on the surroundings is expected to be minimal with the measures taken to provide a development that is sympathetic to the streetscape and the neighbourhood, fulfilling the objectives outlined in the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District Plan. Mitigating measures include: • scaling the building to be consistent with neighbouring structures on the street; • providing less than 10 metre front yard and 11.5 to 32 metre rear yard setbacks; • stepping back the buildings to reduce the streetscape scale and reduce shadowing issues; • providing a high degree of building articulation and architectural detail to provide interest and compatibility with existing neighbourhood buildings; • a varied setback resembling individual buildings,providing a transition from the scale of development on the other side of the street to the residences to the east; • limiting surface parking to the rear yard. The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. L A F ':I["October 23,2013 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 15 30-40 Margaret Avenue, Kitchener A specific measure recommended in the HCD Plan, i.e. retention of the existing trees, cannot be accomplished. New trees will be planted to replace those being removed on the approximately 27% open space of the property This DRAFT heritage impact assessment is respectfully submitted by: The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. per: Owen R. Scott, OALA, FCSLA, CAHP The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. L A F ':I["October 23,2013 Appendix 1 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment—Terms of Reference 1 (received from Leon Bensason—April 3, 2013) City of Kitchener Community Services Department - Planning Division 30-40 Margaret Avenue Proposed Site Plan Application Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment—Terms of Reference 1.0 Background A Heritage Impact Assessment is a study to determine the impacts to known and potential cultural heritage resources within a defined area proposed for future development. The study shall include an inventory of all cultural heritage resources within the planning application area. The study results in a report which identifies all known cultural heritage resources,evaluates the significance of the resources, and makes recommendations toward mitigative measures that would minimize negative impacts to those resources. A Heritage Impact Assessment may be required on a property which is listed on the City's Heritage Advisory Committee Inventory; listed on the City's Municipal Heritage Register; designated under the Ontario Heritage Act; or where development is proposed adjacent to a protected heritage property. The requirement may also apply to unknown or recorded cultural heritage resources which are discovered during the development application stage or construction. These terms of reference have been scoped, based on the submission of a Heritage Impact Assessment which received conditional approval as part of a previous application made for the subject property. Sections not required are noted by strikethrough. 2.0 Heritage Impact Assessment Requirements It is important to recognize the need for Heritage Impact Assessments at the earliest possible stage of development or alteration. Notice will be given to the property owner and/or their representative as early as possible. When the property is the subject of a Plan of Subdivision or Site Plan application, notice of a Heritage Impact Assessment requirement will typically be given at the pre-application meeting, followed by written notification to include specific terms of reference.The notice will inform the property owner of any known heritage resources specific to the subject property and provide guidelines to completing the Heritage Impact Assessment. The following minimum requirements will be required in a Heritage Impact Assessment: 2.1 Present owner contact information for properties proposed for development and/or site alteration. 2.2 A detailed site histafy to ineltide a listing of ownefs ffam the Land Registfy E)fflee, and a his" of the site tise(s). 23 A written description of the buildings, structures and landscape features on the subject property including: building elements, building materials, architectural and interior finishes, natural heritage elements, and landscaping. The desefiption will also ineltide a ehfanalogmeal histafy of the buildings' development, stieh as additions and demalitiona. The report shall include a clear statement of the conclusions regarding the cultural heritage value and interest as well as a bullet point list of heritage attributes. The statement should address the relationship of the property to the surrounding context (including surrounding properties located within the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District and the Margaret Avenue streetscape). 2.4 Documentation of the subject properties to include: current photographs of the property/each elevation of the buildings, photographs of identified heritage attributes and a site plan drawn at an appropriate scale to understand the context of the buildings and site details. Documentation shall also Appendix 1 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment—Terms of Reference 2 include, where available, current floor plans, and historical photos, drawings or other available and relevant archival material. 2.5 An outline of the proposed development, its context, and how it will impact built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes (buildings, structures, and site details including landscaping). In particular, the potential visual and physical impact of the proposed development on identified heritage attributes of the subject property, neighbouring properties, the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District and the Margaret Avenue streetscape shall be assessed. For the purpose of the HIA the "proposed development" shall include both the proposed residential development and the temporary sales centre.The HIA shall also consider potential impacts associated with the proposed phasing of the development. The Heritage Impact Assessment must consider potential negative impacts as identified in the Ministry of Tourism, Culture&Sport's Ontario Heritage Tool Kit. Potential impacts may include those that are visual/contextual, as well as physical/structural. Negative impacts may include but are not limited to:alterations that are not sympathetic or compatible with the cultural heritage resource; demolition of all or part of a cultural heritage resource; etc. The outline should also address the influence and potential impact of the development on the setting and character of the Heritage Conservation District, including any impact on views or site lines. 2.6 Options shall be provided that explain how the cultural heritage resources may be conserved, relating to their level of importance. Methods of mitigation may include, but are not limited to preservation/conservation in situ, adaptive re-use, alternative development approaches, design guidelines, relocation, commemoration and/or documentation. Each mitigative measure should create a sympathetic context for identified cultural heritage resources. 2.7 A summary of the conservation principles and how they will be used must be included. The conservation principles may be found in publications such as: Parks Canada — Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada; Eight Guiding Principles in the Conservation of Built Heritage Properties,Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture&Sport; and,the Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture & Sport's Ontario Heritage Tool Kit (all available online). The HIA should also make reference to the specific policies and guidelines contained within the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District Plan. 2.8 Any loss of cultural heritage value(whether permanent or temporary)resulting from the proposed development(residential and sales centre)impacting the subject property, neighbouring properties,the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District or the Margaret Avenue streetscape, and which cannot be mitigated, shall be explained and justified. 2.9 Recommendations shall be as specific as possible, describing and illustrating locations, elevations, materials, landscaping, timing, etc. 2.10 The qualifications and background of the person(s)completing the Heritage I m pact Assessment shall be included in the report. The author(s) must demonstrate a level of professional understanding and competence in the heritage conservation field of study. The report will also include a reference for any literature cited, and a list of people contacted during the study and referenced in the report. 3.0 Summary Statement and Conservation Recommendations The summary statement should provide a full description of: • The significance and heritage attributes associated with the subject property. • The identification of any impact the proposed development will have on the heritage attributes of the subject property, neighbouring properties, the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District and the Margaret Avenue streetscape. Appendix 1 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment—Terms of Reference 3 • An explanation of what conservation or mitigative measures, or alternative development or site alteration approaches are recommended. • Clarification as to why specific conservation or mitigative measures, or alternative development or site alteration approaches are not appropriate. 4.0 Mandatory Reeemmendation or designation tinder the Gntaric I leritage Aet. Should the eenstiltant not stipport listing or design then Ot must be eleafly stated as to why not. The following questions must be answefed On the final feeammendation of the fepart-- eenservatio.. -- pe. the definition in the Provineial Polmey Statement? Why or why 5.0 Approval Process Five (5) hard copies of the Heritage Impact Assessment and one electronic pdf format burned on CD shall be provided to Heritage Planning staff. Both the hard and electronic copies shall be marked with a "DRAFT" watermark background. The Heritage Impact Assessment will be reviewed by City staff to determine whether all requirements have been met and to review the preferred option(s). Following the review of the Heritage Impact Assessment by City staff, five (5) hard copies and one electronic copy of the final Heritage I m pact Assessment("DRAFT"watermark removed)will be required.The copies of the final Heritage Impact Assessment will be considered by the Director of Planning. Note that Heritage Impact Assessments may be circulated to the City's Heritage Kitchener Committee for information and discussion. A Site Plan Review Committee meeting may not be scheduled until the City's Heritage Kitchener Committee has been provided an opportunity to review and provide feedback to City staff. Heritage Impact Assessments may be subject to a peer review to be conducted by a qualified heritage consultant at the expense of the City of Kitchener.The applicant will be notified of Staff's comments and acceptance, or rejection of the report.An accepted Heritage Impact Assessment will become part of the further processing of a development application under the direction of the Planning Division. The recommendations within the final approved version of the Heritage Impact Assessment may be incorporated into development related legal agreements between the City and the proponent at the discretion of the municipality. Appendix 2 1 excerpt from Record of Pre-submission Consultation RECORD OF PRE-SUBMISSION CONSULTATION City of Kitchener Community Services Department Planning Division, 6th Floor 200 King Street West Kitchener, Ontario N2G 4G7 Phone: 519-741-2426 Fax: 519-741-2624 The purpose of the Pre-Submission Consultation meeting is to review a proposed development and identify the need for, and scope of,the other information and materials necessary for a thorough and complete review of the proposal. This Record of Pre-Submission Consultation documents the required other information and materials that must be submitted in conjunction with the application form and fees. It will be used by Planning Staff to determine whether the application is complete. This Record of Pre-Submission Consultation only applies to the proposal as described below and/or as provided for in the attached concept plan.Unless otherwise approved by the Director of Planning or his/her delegate,this Record of Pre-Submission Consultation shall be valid for one year from the date of the Pre-Submission Consultation Meeting. Date of Pre-Submission Consultation Meeting: Tuesday, March 5, 2013 Address: 30 Margaret Avenue Planner/Staff on File: Michelle Drake Present: Michelle Drake, Janine Oosterveld, Katie Pietrzak, Sandro Bassanese, Heather Holbrook, Leon Bensason, Jason Wigglesworth, Jennifer Vos, Jason Malfara, Jim Fryett, Larry Masseo, Mark Sinden Owner: Activa Holdings Inc c/o Werner Brummund Type of Application(s): F] Site Plan ❑ Zone Change ❑ Official Plan Amendment ❑ Plan of Subdivision ❑ Plan of Vacant Land Condominium Pre-Submission Application Fee in the amount of$773 has been paid in full. Receipt 208435 Appendix 2 2 excerpt from Record of Pre-submission Consultation j. Other Comments Comments Provided By: Leon Bensason, Coordinator, Cultural Heritage Planning (519-741-2200 ext. 7306 Specific Comments: • The subject property is located within the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage ConservationDistrict and is therefore designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act and subject to the guidelines and policies of the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District Plan.A copy of the District Plan is available for download on the City's website. • Heritage Planning staff will require the submission of a scoped Heritage Impact Assessment(HIA)as part of a complete Site Plan Application. A copy of the Terms of Reference for the scoped HIA is attached to this e-mail. In addition to the HIA, the proposed residential development and construction of a temporary sales centre will also require the submission and approval of a Heritage Permit Application.A copy of the Heritage Permit Application Submission Guidelines and Application Form is attached. Heritage Planning staff encourage the applicant to submit a complete Heritage Permit Application in conjunction with a complete Site Plan Application. Approval of the Heritage Impact Assessment will be required prior to Site Plan Approval In Principle. • Approval of the Heritage Permit Application will be made a condition of final Site Plan Approval. • Guidance is provided in the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District Plan regarding potential development of the subject vacant parcel of land.In particular, the following area and site specific guidelines are referenced in the Heritage Conservation District Plan: • New development on the vacant lot on Margaret Avenue should establish a strong relationship to the street similar to that which exists on the south side of the street,by having a maximum front yard setback of 10 metres. • A minimum rear yard setback of 10 to 15 metres is encouraged to minimize the impact of new development on existing residents on Ellen Street West, given that the topography slopes downwards from Margaret Avenue to Ellen Street. This rear yard setback is also more consistent with that of existing development on Ellen Street. • Building stepbacks are encouraged for any development greater than 3-4 storeys in height to minimize the impact of new development on the pedestrian environment of the street. Stepbacks should be a minimum of 2 metres to provide for useable outdoor terraces on the upper levels. • Street level architecture of any new development on Margaret Avenue should incorporate a high degree ofbuilding articulation and architectural detail to provide interest and compatibility with existing buildings across the street. Details could include cornices, pilasters, varied roof lines, pitched roofs, gables and dormers, decorative door and window details, turrets,porches,bays and other similar features. • Create transitions in building width and massing by dividing the building visually into smaller units or sections that are more representative of the predominantly single detached nature of the neighbourhood. • The use of brick and/or stone is strongly encouraged for the front facade of any new development, to establish consistency with other heritage buildings in proximity to this parcel of land. • Parking for new development will not be permitted in the front yard. Underground parking is strongly encouraged, or appropriately landscaped and screened surface parking at the rear or side of the development. • Retention and incorporation of healthy trees currently located on the vacant land parcel is strongly encouraged to provide the new development with an'instant'amenity and to help it blend into the heritage landscape that exists in the Civic Centre Neighbourhood. Design new buildings around the existing trees to the extent possible. Where trees must be removed,they should be replaced with new ones at appropriate locations in the landscape; Appendix 2 3 excerpt from Record of Pre-submission Consultation • In reviewing the plans circulated with the notice of the Pre-Submission Consultation meeting,I would suggest the following elements in particular require attention: • The proposed sales centre does not conform to the HCD Plan guidelines; • The apartment building roof style and the lack of articulation and detail at the roofline; • The lack of transition in building massing and variation in front yard building setbacks; and, • The fire route and drop off access/driveway in the front yard,which is not consistent with the character of the streetscapes within the heritage district. �,e,m�s , R. .�. IIaCId-fipMl}S mQpeys ............. Ism 1..1. �u�y�a!�`anu�na 7a e6aew . .. n.:.„M. uaniuiwopuo am aau�6 �W Nk • f k. d t INI fl . "" / N aunt— fipngs mopeus MW auaq-;;N'anuanv 2aJFD1VH zL uJ sjln L �� _.,,N.,, uaniu ujapuo--) x5.4epq a ol a Nk Ilk 04 ' 0 , � M ' 31N �auau��!�I"anuara aaae�i.lew ��s 113 A N J S f UYIUI UOpuG� ?nor a�1�6 L�1 Mr. rn / ✓ VII I / Appendix 4 1 Tree Survey A survey of the trees on the property and within the adjacent right-of-way was conducted July 31, 2008 and updated in May 2013 by Owen R. Scott. The trees are mapped on the accompanying drawing. The trees within the subject property and adjacent Margaret Street right-of-way are described below. Tree condition is ranked as poor, fair, or good. Good condition trees exhibit no signs of disease, insect or fungal infestation, dead branches, trunk cavities, etc. They also exhibit good form, typical of their species. Good condition trees should be retained if possible. Fair condition trees may have some minor twig dieback or trunk cavities and may not exhibit especially good form. Fair condition trees should be retained if possible if their survivability and general health can be improved through simple arboricultural measures and if they are not trees species fraught with endemic disease/health problems 1. Each tree is keyed to the accompanying tree inventory map by a number. Photographs of selected specimens are also provided. Of interest is the fact that many,but not all the trees,have been previously tagged with a stainless steel disc, stamped with a number. These numbers are indicated below in the table ("tag"). KEY TAG SPECIES SIZE(DBIT)/CONDITION REMARKS 1 103 Fagus sylvatica atropurpurea 79 cm/good (photo) in buffer-remove for construction 2 Tilia americana 30 cm/poor almost dead-remove 3 101 Picea abies 41 cm/poor construction impact-remove 4 Acer negundo construction impact-remove 5 Acer negundo construction impact-remove 6 Acer platanoides shared(on property line)-retain 7 Morus alba retain 8 Morus alba retain 9 Acer platanoides retain 10 Ailanthus altissima shared(on property line)-retain 11 Morus alba retain 12 104 Picea abies 56 cm/fair (photo) construction impact-remove 13 Acer platanoides 102 cm/fair construction impact-remove 14 105 Larix decidua 76 cm/fair (photo) construction impact-remove 15 132 Acer platanoides 56 cm/poor shared(on property line)-retain 16 133 A..platanoides 33 cm/poor shared(on property line)-retain 17 A..platanoides 25 cm/poor shared(on property line)-retain 18 A..platanoides 20 cm/poor shared(on property line)-retain i American Elm(Ulnzus americana),Rock Elm(Ulnzus thomasii), Slippery Elm(Ulnzus rubra), Siberian Elm (Ulnzus pumila)and English Elm(Ulnzus procera)all extremely susceptible to Dutch Elm Disease;Austrian Pine (Pinus nigra),very susceptible to Diplodia Tip Blight; Ash(Fraxinus species)may be added to this list in the future as the Emerald Ash Borer has become prevalent in this geographic area without a reasonable means of control being developed. Appendix 4 2 Tree Survey KEY TAG SPECIES SIZE(DBIT)/CONDITION REMARKS 19 A..platanoides 30 cm/poor shared(on property line)-retain 20 Acer platanoides 102 cm/fair shared(on property line)-retain 21 136 Picea abies 56 cm/fair shared(on property line)-retain 22 Acer saccharum 91 cm/poor construction impact-remove 23 A.platanoides 53 cm/fair to poor construction impact-remove 24 137 Thuja occidentalis 36 cm/poor shared(on property line)-retain 25 107 Acer saccharum 76 cm/poor (photo) construction impact-remove 26 A.platanoides 90 cm/fair to poor construction impact-remove 27 138 Picea pungens 33 cm/fair construction impact-remove 28 Acer saccharum 76 cm/fair construction impact-remove 29 A.saccharum 89 cm/poor construction impact-remove 30 139 Thuja occidentalis 38 cm/fair shared(on property line)-retain 31 140 Fraxinus americana 30 cm/poor shared(on property line)-retain 32 Acer platanoides(cultivar) 35 cm/fair in street right-of-way-retain 33 141 Juglans nigra 63 cm/fair construction impact-remove 34 142 J nigra 30 cm/fair shared(on property line)-retain 35 Carya cordiformis 30 cm/fair shared(on property line)-retain 36 144 Tilia americana 35 cm/fair shared(on property line)-retain 37 Acer platanoides 43 cm/poor in street right-of-way-retain 38 A.saccharinum 58 cm/poor construction impact-remove 39 A.saccharinum 90 cm/poor construction impact-remove 40 124 Picea abies 43 cm/fair construction impact-remove 41 123 P. abies 51 cm/fair construction impact-remove 42 145 P. abies 51 cm/fair shared(on property line)-retain ty line 43 146 P. abies 51 cm/fair shared(on property line)-retain 44 Carya cordiformis 45 cm/poor shared(on property line)-retain 45 Sorbus aria 20 cm/fair in street right-of-way-retain 46 Acer saccharum 83 cm/fair construction impact-remove 47 A.platanoides 20 cm/good construction impact-remove 48 150 Celtis occidentalis 75 cm/fair (photo) construction impact-remove 49 149 Aesculus hippocastanum 30 cm/fair construction impact-remove 50 148 Fraxinus americana 36 cm/fair construction impact-remove 51 Juglans nigra 71 cm/good shared(on property line)-retain Appendix 4 3 Tree Survey KEY TAG SPECIES SIZE(DBIT)/CONDITION REMARKS 52 J nigra 61 cm/good shared(on property line)-retain 53 J. nigra 61 cm/good shared(on property line)-retain 54 J. nigra 20 cm/good shared(on property line)-retain 55 Tilia americana 25 cm/good shared(on property line)-retain 56 Ulmus pumila 28 cm/good shared(on property line)-retain 57 Acer negundo 15 cm/fair shared(on property line)-retain 58 A. negundo 15 cm/fair shared(on property line)-retain 59 A. negundo 15 cm/fair shared(on property line)-retain 60 Tilia americana 35 cm/fair shared(on property line)-retain 61 151 Juglans nigra 91 cm/good construction impact-remove 62 152 J nigra 75 cm/good construction impact-remove 63 153 J nigra 75 cm/good construction impact-remove r � U w ut! ,M r N ( �9w li Iii f r i t � k, r�I� t� VA V r ' Iii �/����/N�/1li�Ni i .�/,,,v/�,/>��✓,i,,; ,i��, » „� fJi �� „ ,,,i�, it c � i, G J b Trees 412&414 Norway Spruce&European Larch Tree 425 - Sugar Maple-poor condition Appendix 4 4 Tree Survey I � n w l ' Tree 414-European Larch fair condition,exhibiting dieback r .. Ir �ovr w M Tree 41 -Copper Beech-good condition u a ry � ra�m Typical twig dieback- Sugar Maple rrr, q Tree 448-Hackberry-fair condition Appendix 4 5 Tree Survey I J„ I u fl 6' v Y � 4 4 If g '"utly��,4 t G 111 UJ V S V 4 N - xM 4 4 G `c t 4 i Qkl f i 4 S 4 4 4 '` Sk yrtpty '` vw.V 6 y 4 4 I V 44 ] M1 z �4y tl Wti Y 7i d 4 p u p L3 t a� ti tl � y Ctr Rte". is Tree inventory June 2013 Appendix 5 6 Qualifications of the Author OWEN R.SCOTT, OALA,FCSLA, CAHP Education: Master of Landscape Architecture(M.L.A.) University of Michigan, 1967 Bachelor of Science in Agriculture(Landscape Horticulture),(B.S.A.) University of Guelph, 1965 Professional Experience: 1977 -present President,The Landplan Collaborative Ltd.,Guelph,Ontario 1965 -present President,Canadian Horticultural Consulting Company Limited,(CHC)Guelph,Ontario 1977 - 1985 Director,The Pacific Landplan Collaborative Ltd.,Vancouver and Nanaimo,BC 1975 - 1981 Editor and Publisher,Landscape Architecture Canada,Ariss,Ontario 1969 - 1981 Associate Professor, School of Landscape Architecture,University of Guelph 1975 - 1979 Director and Founding Principal,Ecological Services for Planning Limited,Guelph,Ontario 1964- 1969 Landscape Architect,Project Planning Associates Limited,Toronto,Ontario Historical Research,Heritage Landscape Planning and Restoration Experience and Expertise Current Professional and Professional Heritage Associations Affiliations: Member: Alliance for Historic Landscape Preservation(AHLP) Member: Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals(CAHP) Member: Ontario Association of Landscape Architects(GALA) Fellow: Canadian Society of Landscape Architects(FCSLA) Community and Professional Society Service(Heritage): Director: Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals(CAHP), 2002 -2003 Member: Advisory Board,Architectural Conservancy of Ontario, 1980-2002 Member: City of Guelph Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee(LACAC), 1987-2000 (Chairman 1988- 1990) Member: Advisory Council,Centre for Canadian Historical Horticultural Studies, 1985 - 1988 Personal and Professional Honours and Awards(Heritage): Mike Wagner Award 2013 Heritage Award-Briethaupt Block,Kitchener,ON People's Choice Award 2012 Brampton Urban Design Awards,Peel Art Gallery,Museum and Archives,Brampton,ON Award of Excellence 2012 Brampton Urban Design Awards,Peel Art Gallery,Museum and Archives,Brampton,ON National Award 2009 Heritage Canada Foundation National Achievement,Alton Mill,Alton,ON Award of Merit 2009 Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals Awards,Alton Mill,Alton,ON Award 2007 Excellence in Urban Design Awards,Heritage,Old Quebec Street,City of Guelph,ON Award 2001 Ontario Heritage Foundation Certificate of Achievement Award 1998 Province of Ontario,Volunteer Award(10 year award) Award 1994 Province of Ontario,Volunteer Award(5 year award) Regional Merit 1990 Canadian Society of Landscape Architects(CSLA),Britannia School Farm Master Plan National Honour 1990 CSLA Awards,Confederation Boulevard,Ottawa Citation 1989 City of Mississauga Urban Design Awards,Britannia School Farm Master Plan Honour Award 1987 Canadian Architect,Langdon Hall Landscape Restoration,Cambridge,ON Citation 1986 Progressive Architecture,The Ceremonial Routes(Confederation Boulevard),Ottawa, National Citation 1985 CSLA Awards,Tipperary Creek Heritage Conservation Area Master Plan, Saskatoon, SK National Merit 1984 CSLA Awards, St.James Park Victorian Garden,Toronto,ON Award 1982 Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs Ontario Renews Awards,Millside,Guelph,ON Selected Heritage Publications: Scott,Owen R., The Southern Ontario "Grid",ACORN Vol XXVI-3, Summer 2001. The Journal of the Architectural Conservancy of Ontario. Scott,Owen R. 19th Century Gardens for the 20'h and 21 st Centuries.Proceedings of"Conserving Ontario's Landscapes" conference of the ACO,(April 1997).Architectural Conservancy of Ontario Inc.,Toronto, 1998. Scott,Owen R. Landscapes of Memories,A Guide for Conserving Historic Cemeteries. (19 of 30 chapters)compiled and edited by Tamara Anson-Cartright,Ontario Ministry of Citizenship,Culture and Recreation, 1997. Appendix 5 1 Qualifications of the Author Scott,Owen R. Cemeteries: A Historical Perspective,Newsletter, The Memorial Society of Guelph, September 1993. Scott,Owen R. The Sound of the Double-bladed Axe,Guelph and its Spring Festival.edited by Gloria Dent and Leonard Conolly,The Edward Johnson Music Foundation,Guelph, 1992.2 pp. Scott,Owen R. Woolwich Street Corridor, Guelph, ACORN Vol XVI-2, Fall 1991. Newsletter of the Architectural Conservancy of Ontario Inc. Scott,Owen R. guest editor,ACORN,Vol.XIV-2,Summer 1989.Cultural Landscape Issue,Newsletter of the Architectural Conservancy of Ontario Inc. Scott,Owen R. Cultivars, pavers and the historic landscape, Historic Sites Supplies Handbook. Ontario Museum Association,Toronto, 1989.9 pp. Scott,Owen R. Landscape preservation- What is it? Newsletter, American Society of Landscape Architects-Ontario Chapter,vol.4 no.3, 1987. Scott,Owen R. Tipperary Creek Conservation Area,Wanuskewin Heritage Park. Landscape Architectural Review,May 1986.pp.5-9. Scott,Owen R. Victorian Landscape Gardening. Ontario Bicentennial History Conference,McMaster University, 1984. Scott,OwenR. Canada West Landscapes.Fifth Annual Proceedings Niagara Peninsula History Conference(1983). 1983. 22 pp. Scott,Owen R. Utilizing History to Establish Cultural and Physical Identity in the Rural Landscape.Landscape Planning, Elsevier Scientific Press,Amsterdam, 1979. Vol. 6,No.2,pp. 179-203. Scott,Owen R. Changing Rural Landscape in Southern Ontario. Third Annual Proceedings Agricultural History of Ontario Seminar(1978). June 1979. 20 pp. Scott, Owen R., P. Grimwood, M. Watson. George Lain4 - Landscape Gardener, Hamilton, Canada West 1808-1871. Bulletin, The Association for Preservation Technology, Vol. IX, No. 3, 1977, 13 pp. (also published in Landscape Architecture Canada,Vol.4,No. 1, 1978). Scott,Owen R. The Evaluation of the Upper Canadian Landscape. Department of Landscape Architecture,University of Manitoba. 1978. (Colour videotape). Following is a representative listing of some of the many heritage landscape projects undertaken by Owen R.Scott in his capacity as a landscape architect with Project Planning Associates Ltd., as principal of Owen R. Scott& Associates Limited,as principal of CHC Limited,and as principal of The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. • Acton Quarry Cultural Heritage Landscape&Built Heritage Study&Assessment Peer Review,Acton,ON • Alton Mill Landscape,Caledon,ON • Belvedere Terrace-Peer Review,Assessment of Proposals for Heritage Property,Parry Sound,ON • Black Creek Pioneer Village Master Plan,Toronto,ON • Britannia School Farm Master Plan, Peel Board of Education/Mississauga,ON • Confederation Boulevard(Sussex Drive)Urban Design, Site Plans,NCC/Ottawa,ON • Swift Current CPR Station Gardens condition report and feasibility study for rehabilitation/reuse,Swift Current, SK • Cruickston Park Farm-Cultural Heritage Resources Study,Cambridge,ON • Doon Heritage Crossroads Master Plan and Site Plans, Region of Waterloo/Kitchener,ON • Downtown Guelph Private Realm Improvements Manual,City of Guelph,ON • Downtown Guelph Public Realm Plan, City of Guelph,ON • Dundurn Castle Landscape Restoration Feasibility Study,City of Hamilton,ON • Elam Martin Heritage Farmstead Master Plan,City of Waterloo,ON • Exhibition Park Master Plan,City of Guelph,ON • Feasibility Study for a Heritage Resource Centre,Regional Municipality of Waterloo,ON • George Brown House Landscape Restoration, Toronto,ON • Government of Ontario Light Rail Transit Route Selection,Cultural and Natural Resources Inventory for Environmental Assessment, Hamilton/Burlington,ON • Grand River Corridor Conservation Plan, GRCA/Regional Municipality of Waterloo,ON • Hespeler West Secondary Plan-Heritage Resources Assessment, City of Cambridge,ON • John Galt Park, City of Guelph,ON • Judy LaMarsh Memorial Park Master Plan,NCC/Ottawa,ON • Lakewood Golf Course Cultural Landscape Assessment,Tecumseh,ON • Landfill Site Selection,Cultural Heritage Inventory for Environmental Assessment, Region of Halton,ON • Langdon Hall Gardens Restoration and Site Plans,Cambridge,ON • MacGregor/Albert Heritage Conservation District Study and Plan,City of Waterloo,ON • Museum of Natural Science/Magnet School 59/Landscape Restoration and Site Plans,City of Buffalo,NY • Muskoka Pioneer Village Master Plan,MNR/Huntsville,ON • Peel Heritage Centre Adaptive Re-use,Landscape Design,Brampton,ON Appendix 5 2 Qualifications of the Author • Phyllis Rawlinson Park Master Plan(winning design competition),Town of Richmond Hill,ON • Prime Ministerial Precinct and Rideau Hall Master Plan,NCC/Ottawa,ON • Queen/Picton Streets Streetscape Plans,Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake,ON • Regional Heritage Centre Feasibility Study and Site Selection,Region of Waterloo,ON • Rockway Gardens Master Plan,Kitchener Horticultural Society/City of Kitchener,ON • South Kitchener Transportation Study,Heritage Resources Assessment,Region of Waterloo,ON • St. George's Square,City of Guelph,ON • St.James Park Victorian Garden,City of Toronto,ON • Tipperary Creek(Wanuskewin)Heritage Conservation Area Master Plan,MVA/Saskatoon, SK • University of Toronto&Queen's Park Heritage Conservation District Study,City of Toronto,ON • Waterloo Valleylands Study,Heritage and Recreational Resources mapping and policies,Region of Waterloo • Woodside National Historic Park Landscape Restoration,Parks Canada/Kitchener,ON • 255 Geddes Street,Elora,ON,heritage opinion evidence-Ontario Superior Court of Justice Heritage Impact Assessments,Heritage Impact Statements and Heritage Conservation Plans: o Barra Castle Heritage Impact Assessment,Kitchener,ON o Biltmore Hat Factory Heritage Impact Assessment,Guelph,ON 0 140 Blue Heron Ridge Heritage Impact Assessment,Cambridge,ON 0 51 Breithaupt Street Heritage Impact Assessment,Kitchener,ON 0 51 Breithaupt Street Heritage Conservation Plan,Kitchener,ON o Bridge 420 Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report&Heritage Impact Assessment,Blandford-Blenheim Township,ON o Bridge 425 Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report&Heritage Impact Assessment,Blandford-Blenheim Township,ON 0 215 Broadway Street Heritage Impact Statement,Mississauga,ON Cambridge Retirement Complex on the former Tiger Brand Lands,Heritage Impact Assessment,Cambridge,ON 0 27-31 Cambridge Street,Heritage Impact Assessment,Cambridge,ON 0 3075 Cawthra Road Heritage Impact Statement,Mississauga,ON City Centre Heritage Impact Assessment,Kitchener,ON 0 175 Cityview Drive Heritage Impact Assessment,Guelph,ON Cordingly House Heritage Impact Statement,Mississauga,ON 0 264 Crawley Road Heritage Impact Assessment, Guelph,ON 0 31-43 David Street(25 Joseph Street)Heritage Impact Assessment,Kitchener,ON 0 35 David Street(Phase II)Heritage Impact Assessment,Kitchener,ON 0 172- 178 Elizabeth Street Heritage Impact Assessment,Guelph,ON 0 3 - 7 Gordon Street Heritage Impact Assessment,Guelph,ON 0 1261 Dundas Street South Heritage Impact Assessment,Cambridge,ON Grey Silo Golf Course/Elam Martin Farmstead Heritage Impact Assessment, City of Waterloo,ON GRCA Lands,748 Zeller Drive Heritage Impact Assessment Addendum,Kitchener,ON o Hamilton Psychiatric Hospital Conservation Plan,for Infrastructure Ontario,Hamilton,ON o Hancock Woodlands Cultural Heritage Assessment and Heritage Impact Statement,City of Mississauga,ON o Hart Farm Heritage Impact Assessment,Guelph,ON o Kip Co.Lands Developments Ltd. Cultural Heritage Resource Impact Assessment-Woodbridge Heritage Conservation District,City of Vaughan,ON 0 117 Liverpool Street Heritage Impact Assessment, Guelph,ON 0 30-40 Margaret Avenue Heritage Impact Assessment(2008),Kitchener,ON 0 2610,2620 and 2630 Mississauga Road,Cultural Landscape Heritage Impact Statement,Mississauga,ON 0 4067 Mississauga Road,Cultural Landscape Heritage Impact Statement,Mississauga,ON 0 1245 Mona Road,Heritage Impact Statement,Mississauga,ON o Proposed Region of Waterloo Multimodal Hub at 16 Victoria Street North,50&60 Victoria Street North,and 520& 510 King Street West,Heritage Study and Heritage Impact Assessment,Kitchener,ON 0 324 Old Huron Road Heritage Impact Assessment,Kitchener,ON 0 40 Queen Street South Heritage Impact Statement,Mississauga,(Streetsville),ON o Rockway Holdings Limited Lands north of Fairway Road Extension Heritage Impact Assessment,Kitchener,ON o Thorny-Brae Heritage Impact Statement,Mississauga,ON University of Guelph,Trent Institute Cultural Heritage Resource Assessment,Guelph,ON University of Guelph, 1 and 10 Trent Lane Cultural Heritage Resource Assessments,Guelph,ON University of Guelph,Gordon Street Houses,Heritage Impact Assessment,Guelph,ON o Victoria Park Proposed Washroom Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment,Kitchener,ON 0 927 Victoria Road South Heritage Impact Assessment, Guelph,ON Appendix 5 3 Qualifications of the Author o Winzen Developments Heritage Impact Assessment,Cambridge,ON 0 1123 York Road Heritage Impact Assessment,Guelph,ON Expert Witness Experience: Owen R. Scott has been called as an expert witness at a number of hearings and trials. These include Ontario Municipal Board Hearings,Conservation Review Board Hearings,Environmental Assessment Board and Environmental Protection Act Board Hearings,and civil and criminal trials. The heritage landscapes evidence he has presented has been related to cultural heritage issues where historical and landscape resources were evaluated.